Today I received the verdict in a lawsuit filed for me by my attorney, Renen Ziv, against Honenu for copyright violations. Honenu, according to the NGO website, provides legal services to “Soldiers and civilians who find themselves in legal entanglements due to defending themselves against Arab aggression, or due to their love for Israel”. According to a recent article published in Haaretz (Uriel Heilman, “Is US Taxpayer Money Subsidizing Jewish Terrorism against Arabs,” 25 August, 2015), the NGO in fact “provides financial support to Jews convicted of or on trial for violence against Palestinians, including so-called price tag attacks in the West Bank.”
Among the extremists indicted for these acts of violence and defended by Honenu are the alleged killers of Muhammad Abu Khdeir, a 16 year old boy from Shu’fat in East Jerusalem. Abu Khdeir was allegedly abducted by settlers in the early hours of 2 July 2014, driven to a woods nearby and burnt alive.
The judge presiding over my case accepted all my arguments and ruled:
1. There is no disagreement that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright of the photograph that is the subject of the complaint before us, according to article 11 of the copyright law of 2007.
2. The defendant’s actions are among those prohibited by articles 11 and 12 of the above law and through these actions the defendant are contrary to article 47 of the law and in violation of the plaintiff’s copyright.
3. Was the moral right of the plaintiff also violated? in my opinion, the answer to this question is to the affirmative.
4. There is no disagreement that the context of the photo in the original publication is entirely different than the context of the photo when it was published by the defendant.
5. In light of the above, the conduct of the defendant cannot be considered as fair. We cannot consider the NGO’s violation as “innocent,” either in relation to the usage of the photo or its conduct after the plaintiff demanded they remove the photo.
6. In light of the conclusion that the plaintiff’s moral right to the photograph has been violated, I rule that the defendant compensate the plaintiff for both violations.
Congrats, Haim.
What a great photo. Please tell us the circumstances of it.
A group of IDF soldiers entered the house to the left. A soldier attempted to block Bilal Tamimi, a local photo journalist from documenting the raid. The soldier photographed here is attempting to demonstrate he is not using violence against Tamimi, even though troops often verbally threaten and use violence against journalists who document IDF brutality.